Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
These sources seem satisfactory to me for the claims they are intended to prove in the article. ] (]) 15:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
These sources seem satisfactory to me for the claims they are intended to prove in the article. ] (]) 15:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
:First off, I didn't remove the content. I removed the Reason and OpenLawLab sources, and I did so based on ]. Reliability certainly runs on a spectrum, but WP:BLOGS clearly indicates that non-news blogs (such as these) are not reliable. They simply can't be cited for the facts they contain, period. If you feel that sourcing isn't required for the content because it's like saying "]" then that's another matter beyond the scope of this discussion. Likewise for the other sources you mention. (I'll note, however, that the Election Law Blog runs afoul of WP:BLOGS as well and Watchdog.org]] is run by the subject of this article so it should only be cited in accordance with ].) --] (]) 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Notability
Viewing the sources currently referenced, LBI doesn't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for organizations. The only reliable secondary sources that are referenced are the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Governing. In both of these cases LBI is only mentioned in passing. This is what is referred to in WP:ORG as "trivial or incidental coverage.
It is true that Ballotpedia is gets substantial coverage in some of the referenced sources, but Ballotpedia already has its own page. Perhaps LBI and Ballotpedia (and Judgepedia) should be merged. But as this article stands now LBI does not merit its own independent article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
A merge of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia to the Lucy Burns Institute page, along with appropriate redirects, would work. Although I do believe the Lucy Burns Institute has standalone notability, as evidenced by the numerous sources I've added to the article, including a Politico article which states that is based off of an article written by the "nonprofit, nonpartisan Lucy Burns Institute." Schematica (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've requested comment on this matter (see below). I'm not so sure a redirect is the best option here, given the fact that it does seem to me that the Lucy Burns Institute meets the notability test apart from Ballotpedia and Judgepedia. Schematica (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy requires "inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." You've repeatedly removed the content "The Lucy Burns Institute publishes a website called Policypedia," and "The Lucy Burns Institute published a guide on local ballot measures" despite my efforts at inserting multiple references to verify these facts. Are these facts that are "likely to be challenged?" Morever, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." We're not trying to say "the sky is green" or "2+2=5." These are very simple, non-controversial statements. The sources I've gathered are perfectly sufficient for verifying the facts that they have been attached to in this article.
Publication of a website called Policypedia:
Reason Foundation "At the end of June 2014, the Lucy Burns Institute, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization dedicated to fairness and openness in politics headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, launched Policypedia." The claim is "The Lucy Burns Institute publishes Policypedia." This source verifies that claim.
Publication of a ballot measure guide book:
Election Law Blog by Richard L. Hasen Here we have a noted law professor writing that the Lucy Burns Institute published a ballot measure guide book.
First off, I didn't remove the content. I removed the Reason and OpenLawLab sources, and I did so based on WP:BLOGS. Reliability certainly runs on a spectrum, but WP:BLOGS clearly indicates that non-news blogs (such as these) are not reliable. They simply can't be cited for the facts they contain, period. If you feel that sourcing isn't required for the content because it's like saying "the sky is blue" then that's another matter beyond the scope of this discussion. Likewise for the other sources you mention. (I'll note, however, that the Election Law Blog runs afoul of WP:BLOGS as well and Watchdog.org]] is run by the subject of this article so it should only be cited in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
